Which is a made-up pseudo-science based on normalizing modern Western patriarchal beliefs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution or what is "natural" for men (or anybody) and it doesn’t even employ the scientific method. It’s basically just “deciding” how things must naturally be absent the actual science.
Sexual promiscuity is actually quite evolutionarily sound - for all female animals - but it's particularly noticeable in primates.
Gowaty describes the benefits of multiple mates as an answer to the never-ending evolutionary struggle against what may be the world’s greatest predator: disease.
In this illness-driven arms race, organisms that produce offspring from multiple mates are more likely to produce some children with the right antibodies to survive the next generation of viruses, bacteria and parasites. Source
Primatologist, Meredith Small notes that seeking novelty is the single most observable trait among all the sexual behaviors, preferences, and drivers of female primates. Female primates are actually the complete opposite of how we’ve been taught to imagine them — as reluctant breeders or seekers of “intimacy” with a single “best” mate or only seeking to mate with the alpha.
"First off, scientists who actually study human sexuality and mating (and don’t just concoct theories about it) agree that there are no single strategies that all humans use all the time, or that are native to human males or universal for human females. “We argue that human mating strategies are unlikely to conform to a single universal pattern.”
Contrary to Evo Psych assertions, in many cultures, men not only have extra-marital liaisons, but they accept their wives' infidelity. They also often willingly raise children that they did not father. In some cultures, it is believed that it takes more than one man to “make” a baby, and in others, partible paternity is common — where two men are considered the father of a child. All of this is good for children, ensuring that more of them live into adulthood.
Among the Lesu of Melanesia, not only are different styles of marriage possible (monogamy, polygamy, and polyandry), but extra-marital affairs are both expected and typical. A married man is a “father” to all of his wife’s children, regardless of actual paternity, and jealousy is not considered appropriate. So much for Evo Psych's ideas about innate male proprietary feelings or the evolutionary imperative of only raising your own progeny.
The way that we survived into the modern age when no other hominin groups did was by engaging in higher levels of cooperation and friendliness.
Reproductive fitness can be bolstered by helping to maintain a strong group, not solely by only benefitting your own offspring. Collaboration is a survival strategy that has served humans well — despite neo-liberal informed views that competition is the main driver of evolutionary success.
“In the end, evolutionary psychologists have imagined a reproductive strategy for men that would be highly unadaptive in most societies and across most of human history. Although it reflects the division of labor in industrial societies, it does not accord with or account for the diverse patterns of the division of labor found in the world.”
Polyandry was normal in pre-contact Polynesia, particularly for high caste women and still takes place in the Indian Himalayas and in parts of Tibet. In Lowland South America, and in Africa partible paternity, where two or more men mate with a woman for the purposes of producing a child, is common in many cultures. Spreading fatherly feelings throughout the group helps to maintain solidarity and cohesion as well as promotes the wellbeing of a greater number of children.
Reproductive fitness (the chance that offspring will, in turn, produce their own offspring) is enhanced by cooperative alloparenting of this kind where several adults take an active interest in the lives of children.
“Despite the belief that monogamous male-female bonding is how mothers and children were supported and thrived, the anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and others believe it was actually female cooperative breeding, or alloparenting — ‘sharing and caring derived from the pooled energy’ of a network of ‘grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, distantly related kin, and non-kin’ — that shaped our evolution.” (2)
This is how patriarchy has taught you to think, but that doesn’t make it any more real or legitimate than any other style of mating or marriage. You’re welcome to it, but don’t pretend that it’s scientific — because it’s really not — and that is the REAL cultural hypocrisy that anyone thinks that it is.
